Annie’s Law (H.B. 469) a bill that would have required all first-time OVI offenders to install an ignition interlock device in their vehicles has failed to garner enough votes to make it out of committee. The bill, in its proposed form would have required a driver to blow into the the device to start the car, which would prevent the engine from starting if too much alcohol was detected on his or her breath.
The bill faced opposition from the [Read the full post. . .]
How does “gaslighting” relate to Ohio DUI laws?
In the 1944 film Gaslight, Ingrid Bergman’s character Paula Alquist Anton meets and marries the charming Gregory Anton played by Charles Boyer. The husband does everything in his power to isolate his wife from other people. He allows her neither to go out nor to have visitors, implying that he is doing so for her own good, because her nerves have been acting up, causing her to become a kleptomaniac and [Read the full post. . .]
This DUI law update sets forth an alternate interpretation of MADDs attempt to pass Annie’s Law. Is it possible that MADD has seen the error of its ways and is seeking to do damage control? The most common complaint about DUI enforcement in the State of Ohio concerns the ability of a police officer to seize your license and prevent you from driving for 15 or 30 days (first offense) before you are even taken to court. We often hear [Read the full post. . .]
DUI case law update: State v. Ilg, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-4258
For most of my career I have had to deal with a tremendous disadvantage in DUI cases. In 1984, the Ohio Supreme Court decided State v. Vega, 12 Ohio St. 3d 185, 465 N.E.2d 1303 (1984) which was interpreted to prevent an attack on the breath test machine if it attacked the “general reliability” of a breath alcohol test if it was “conducted in accordance with methods [Read the full post. . .]
If you have been following developments in DUI law, you have no doubt heard about the United States Supreme Court decision in Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S.Ct. 1552 (2013). The case deals with when, and under what circumstances the government is required to seek a warrant prior to drawing blood from a suspected DUI offender. Below is a quote from the case which provides a reasonable (and short) analysis of the case. If you want to read [Read the full post. . .]